dude, many of those deaths were the attackers themselves, so please, just stop.

Point is, the Benghazi attack is much different. The CIA warns of an eminent attack (unlike with W*GS post), state department ignores this intelligence, does nothing because of a secrete Whitehouse agenda or operation. 4 US personell die, including the Ambassador, the highest ranking US official in that country.

Anyone who defends this crap, or says that congress is fishing for something that just isn't there, you are wrong. Period.

The CIA did not warn of an imminent attack on the Benghazi compound. They had no actionable intelligence. And what secret WH agenda /operation are you referring to?

Please, watch this again, it's extremely important that the State Department was warned over and over about the problems in Benghazi, so much so that the British pulled their own ambassador out.

Why didn't the US pull our ambassador out too?:

I don't need to watch it again. Nobody is debating that the State Dept should have beefed up security around all US interests in Libya given the unstable environment there. They miscalculated. We know that. What's your point?

I don't need to watch it again. Nobody is debating that the State Dept should have beefed up security around all US interests in Libya given the unstable environment there. They miscalculated. We know that. What's your point?

They miscalculated?

They flat out ignored the problem, the question is WHY? After the attacks the state department then gets their talking points FROM THE WHITEHOUSE. WHY?

So you are suggesting that the WH wanted the embassy to be defenseless?

I'm saying (and there are other posts here to support this) that this wasn't simply a gaff buy the State Department. If it was just a bad call by the state department then everyone in the state department should be not only fired, but possibly prosecuted to the full extent of the law for gross negligence. The State Department is under guidance and control from the Whitehouse:

The Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress have constitutional responsibilities for U.S. foreign policy. Within the Executive Branch, the Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, and its head, the Secretary of State, is the President's principal foreign policy advisor, though other officials or individuals may have more influence on their foreign policy decisions. The Department advances U.S. objectives and interests in the world through its primary role in developing and implementing the President's foreign policy.

I'm saying there's a direct link between the State Departments gross mishandling of Benghazi and the Whitehouse, and it needs to be investigated.

I'm saying (and there are other posts here to support this) that this wasn't simply a gaff buy the State Department. If it was just a bad call by the state department then everyone in the state department should be not only fired, but possibly prosecuted to the full extent of the law for gross negligence. The State Department is under guidance and control from the Whitehouse:

The Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress have constitutional responsibilities for U.S. foreign policy. Within the Executive Branch, the Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, and its head, the Secretary of State, is the President's principal foreign policy advisor, though other officials or individuals may have more influence on their foreign policy decisions. The Department advances U.S. objectives and interests in the world through its primary role in developing and implementing the President's foreign policy.

I'm saying there's a direct link between the State Departments gross mishandling of Benghazi and the Whitehouse, and it needs to be investigated.

Well you scoffed at the idea that the poor handling (in retrospect) of the security situation was a "miscalculation." There is only one other option and that is it was deliberate. Either it was unintentional (a "miscalculation") or it was intentional. There are no other options.

So once again do you believe it was deliberate? If not then you must concede that it could have been a "miscalculation." You can't have it both ways.

June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.

July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).

July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."

August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

Timeline of 9/11 Consulate Attack As It Unfolds
September 11, 2012: 9:43 a.m. Benghazi time (3:43 ET): Amb. Stevens sent cables to D.C., including a Benghazi weekly report of security incidents reflecting Libyans' "growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure."

Well you scoffed at the idea that the poor handling (in retrospect) of the security situation was a "miscalculation." There is only one other option and that is it was deliberate. Either it was unintentional (a "miscalculation") or it was intentional. There are no other options.

So once again do you believe it was deliberate? If not then you must concede that it could have been a "miscalculation." You can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you this, if it was just a simple mistake, what does that tell you about the Obama adminstration? Do you have any confidence in the Whitehouse and its constituants like the Department of State?

You can't defend this gross incompetence, if that's all it was.

I don't think it was gross incompetence, I think the Whitehouse directed everything. But if it was just incompetence, then head should roll.

June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.

July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).

July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."

August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

Timeline of 9/11 Consulate Attack As It Unfolds
September 11, 2012: 9:43 a.m. Benghazi time (3:43 ET): Amb. Stevens sent cables to D.C., including a Benghazi weekly report of security incidents reflecting Libyans' "growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure."

None of which demonstrates there was actionable intelligence.

We all know in hindsight there should have been better security. What's your point?

Let me ask you this, if it was just a simple mistake, what does that tell you about the Obama adminstration? Do you have any confidence in the Whitehouse and its constituants like the Department of State?

You can't defend this gross incompetence, if that's all it was.

I don't think it was gross incompetence, I think the Whitehouse directed everything. But if it was just incompetence, then head should roll.

So you believe that the WH deliberately withheld additional security and deliberately wanted the embassy to be defenseless, is that right?

So you believe that the WH deliberately withheld additional security and deliberately wanted the embassy to be defenseless, is that right?

I think it's very possible that the WH was trying to smuggle illegal military assets into Syria which were coming from Libya. There's simply no other "reasonable" explanation as to why the State Department ignored the security problem at the consolate, nor why Stevens was not simply pulled out.

Now, if you want to believe it was all just a mistake, answer my previous question, do you have any confidence in the WH and it's constituants when these types of "mistakes" happen? And if it was all just a mistake, don't you think the WH should be held responsible, along with the Department of State since the Department of State functions under the WH's control?